# Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 661
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-08
- **Case number:** J. Special Appeal Defective No. 57 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51457
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Service Law - U.P. Police Regulations -
Rule 523 - Transfer and Relieving Orders -
Petitioners challenged transfer orders dated
05.06.2023 and 27.05.2023, and relieving
orders dated 14.11.2023, 06.11.2023, and
15.12.2023, alleging non-compliance with Rule
523 requiring relieving within 10 days of transfer
- Held, delayed relieving orders violate Rule
523, reflecting arbitrariness and non-uniform

## Text

2 All. Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
of 2002 by the Supreme Court in Bank of
Baroda (supra).

28. Ms. Vatsala has placed reliance
upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in
UCO Bank and others Vs. Sanwar Mal,
(2004) 4 SCC 412. This judgment although
interpreted Regulation 22 but had not taken
note of the settlement of 2002 which
subsequently came to be arrived at between
the employees and the Bank. Clause 6(b) of
2002 Settlement, with which we are
concerned, did not fall for consideration in
UCO Bank (supra). The ratio of law laid
down by the Supreme Court in UCO Bank
(supra) relying upon Clause 22 of the
Pension Regulations, 1995, would thus not
have
any
relevance
in
the
present
controversy.

29. Having examined the respective
submissions advanced at the bar, we are of
the considered view that the superannuation
benefits including pension, etc., made
admissible to an employee removed from
service under Clause 6(b) of the Settlement
of 2002 ought not to be interpreted in a
narrow sense. It ought to be given a
construction consisting with the nature of
settlement i.e. beneficent for the employee.
Any
narrow
construction
would
not
subserve the objective of the Settlement of
2002. We, therefore, find ourselves to be in
agreement with the view expressed by the
learned Single Judge in extending offer to
the respondent to opt for pension upon
terms indicated in the Settlement of 2002.
The appeal filed by the Bank, accordingly,
fails.

30. We are inclined to take similar
view in the matter of leave encashment also
as under the applicable regulations and
circular of the Bank leave encashment is
admissible to an employee who is entitled
to superannuation benefits and pension.
Once we hold that the respondent is entitled
to opt for pension under the Settlement of
2010, and has otherwise been extended
superannuation benefits in the form of
Contributory Provident Fund, there would
be no good ground to deny the benefit of
leave encashment to the respondent. No
applicable provision of law is shown which
dis-entitles the respondent to payment of
leave encashment notwithstanding the
Settlement of 2002.

31.

For
the
reasons
and
discussions held above, this appeal fails
and is, consequently, dismissed. Costs
made easy.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 661
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 57 of 2024

Bhagwan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Akash Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Seasonal Collection Peon
- Denial of Engagement - Appellant, a
Seasonal
Collection
Peon,
challenged
the
dismissal of his writ petition seeking restoration
of
services
and
payment
of
salary
-
Respondents allegedly overlooked his seniority
(serial no. 187) and engaged juniors based on a
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint against him - Learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition, relying on unverified
allegations in the complaint - Held, allegations
in a complaint cannot be treated as adjudicated
facts without verification or formal inquiry - No
counter affidavit was invited, nor was the
appellant's appointment legality examined -
Learned Single Judge's findings on appellant's
minority or criminal antecedents unsustainable
without evidence - Writ petition dismissal set
aside. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

B. Service Law - Natural Justice -
Adjudication
Requirement
-
Denial
of
appellant's engagement as Seasonal Collection
Peon based on unverified complaint violates
principles of natural justice - Held, competent
authority must examine the appellant's claim
regarding denial of work and seniority - No
conclusion can be drawn from a private
complaint
without
formal
adjudication
or
verification of allegations - Respondent no. 3
directed to consider appellant's claim and pass a
reasoned order within two months. (Paras 4, 5)

Special Appeal Allowed - Writ Petition
Order Set Aside - Matter Remanded for
Consideration.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)

Order
on
Delay
Condonation
Application

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Reasons for delay in filing the
special appeal have been satisfactorily
explained. Delay Condonation Application
is consequently allowed. Office is directed
to treat the appeal as having been filed
within time. Regular Number would be
allotted to the appeal.

Order on Special Appeal

1. Appellant filed the writ petition
before the learned Single Judge with the
prayer to direct the respondent authorities
to
restore
his
services
as
Seasonal
Collection Peon in Tehsil Kiraoli, District-
Agra and pay his salary month to month
within some period to be fixed by this
Court. In the writ petition, the petitioner
stated that he was placed at serial no.187
and the authorities by ignoring his seniority
have proceeded to engage others who were
much junior to him, overlooking his claim.
It was alleged that on account of some
motivated complaint, the authorities were
not allowing the petitioner to work.

2.

Learned
Single
Judge
has
dismissed the writ petition after taking note
of the contents of the complaint made
against him. Learned Single Judge has
observed that the allegations made in the
complaint since are not disputed, as such
the ouster of the name of the petitioner
from the list of Seasonal Collection Peon
seems to be justified.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the allegations made in the
complaint cannot be treated to be an
adjudication on the charges levelled against
him and without adverting to the veracity
of the allegations made in the complaint,
the petitioner cannot be held dis-entitled to
continue as Seasonal Collection Peon.

4. We find substance in the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellant that in
the absence of any adjudication, the
allegations made in the complaint cannot
be treated as correct. There is nothing on
record to show that any of the authorities
have
examined
the
legality
of
the
appointment offered to the appellant nor
the appellant's claim regarding denial of
work has so far been attended to by the
2 All. Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210 & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
competent authority. Learned Single Judge
could not have drawn conclusion from the
allegations contained in the complaint even
if the petitioner had not elaborately
explained the allegations in the writ.
Further, the findings returned by the
learned Single Judge holding appellantpetitioner to be minor at the time of
appointment or having criminal antecedents
could not be returned on the basis of a
complaint made by some private person.
Neither any counter affidavit was invited in
the writ nor the averments made in the
complaint were verified. Consequently and
for the reasons narrated above, the
judgment and order passed by learned
Single Judge on 17.08.2023 cannot be
approved. The order of learned Single
Judge dated 17.08.2023 is set aside.

5. The writ petition and the Special
Appeal both are disposed of with a
direction upon the respondent no.3 to
accord consideration to petitioner's claim
with regard to denial of engagement as
Seasonal Collection Peon overlooking his
seniority, by passing a reasoned order
within a period of two months.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 663
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Writ - A No. 265 of 2024
And
Writ - A No. 268 of 2024

Sunil Kumar Pandey PNR No. 062018210
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
M.P. Raju

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - U.P. Police Regulations -
Rule 523 - Transfer and Relieving Orders -
Petitioners challenged transfer orders dated
05.06.2023 and 27.05.2023, and relieving
orders dated 14.11.2023, 06.11.2023, and
15.12.2023, alleging non-compliance with Rule
523 requiring relieving within 10 days of transfer
- Held, delayed relieving orders violate Rule
523, reflecting arbitrariness and non-uniform
policy application - Param Singh Vs St. of U.P.
followed, emphasizing adherence to transfer
policy unless justified by recorded reasons -
Judicial restraint in interfering with policy
decisions reiterated, but non-compliance with
regulations warrants intervention - Director
General of Police directed to investigate noncompliance with Rule 523, report district-wise
violations within 60 days, and propose punitive
actions
-
Relieving
orders
stayed
until
30.04.2024, petitioners to join new postings
within a week thereafter - Uniform transfer
policy
implementation
emphasized
for
transparency and accountability. (Para 12-28)

Writ petitions disposed of.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Sardaj Ali PNR No. 012642278 Vs St. of U.P.;
(not fully cited in judgment)

2. Head Constable Harendra Kumar Ram Vs St.
of U.P.; (not fully cited in judgment)

3. Head Constable Ravindra Kumar & ors. Vs St.
of U.P.; (not fully cited in judgment)

4. Ainuddin PNR No. 912412830 Vs St. of U.P.;
(not fully cited in judgment)

5. S.I. Surendra Kumar Dwivedi & ors. Vs St. of
U.P.; (not fully cited in judgment)

6. Abhay Ram & anr.Vs St. of U.P.; (not fully
cited in judgment)